So what are your guys' positions on Global Warming?
Actually, the research to date is almost incontrovertible. Although there is natural climate change, the rate of change that we are experiencing can be directly attributed to human activity. There are a few scientist who are in disagreement, but inquiries into their research find that they are overwhelmingly funded by the energy (mostly petroleum) industries.South Texas Salt said:The question is: does man made global warming exists or is it just a cycle that happens every so many 100 years. We have so little history of the earth and temps, etc. (less than 100 years of good data) that my opinion we do NOT know for certain that man has anything to do with the cause of golbal warming.
For me the issue is: stop polution and waste of natural resources. Salt.
Darrell, the Younger Dryas event was an impact event i.e. a meteorite impacted the earth and the ensuing debris thrown into the atmosphere caused a rapid decrease in global temperature. There is little evidence to support rapid global warming as a natural event.deepskydarrell said:Here's a Quote From "The Privileged Planet" by Gonzalez and Richards, 2004:
"Ice cores have revealed that very large climate swings can occur over just a few years - at least they have in the past. Civilized humankind has not experienced such events. The last one, the Younger Dryas, occurred about twelve thousand years ago. Cooling our climate to glacial temperatures over just a few years would severely disrupt global food production and render cities far from the equator uninhabitable. The ice record from central Greenland shows that events like the Younger Dryas were the norm for most of the last 100,000 years, while the time corresponding to human recorded history has been quite exceptional. Extending the record further back in time with the less detailed Antartic ice cores, it appears that the present warm period is the longest-lived one of the past 420,000 years. There's clearly something special about our time."
So for only the last 12,000 years have we been living in an exceptionally warm period, the rest has been mostly Brrrr.
Yes we have been polluting the planet and that should be curtailed, but global warming has less to do with CO2 levels and cow farts and more to do with the variableness of our star (sun) and other uncontrolable cycles.
DSD.
It was done. They called it "An Inconvenient Truth". Won an Oscar, too. eace:marko said:Never mind Omega Man and I Am Ledgend. I think the next big thriller should be Global Warming...!!!
Think of the possabilities with a movie like that. Although somthing as believable as this would probably
be seen as a docudrama and snorefest by the masses......WAKE UP PEOPLE....!!!!!
Marko
Actually, harpour didn't sign the Kiyoto deal, 10's of thousands of scientist's signed a potition telling him not to.northriver2 said:I am sickened that our government has not stepped up to the emission standards that many countries have agreed to. We can say goodbye to our salmon stocks in an accelerated amount of time if we don't do our part. Its reality now, not just just an idea.
That's embarresing that someone could find a movie of a guy that stand there and lies to you over and over again with false information good.HOOK said:that Docudrama was pretty good :thumbup: and very informative seen it more than once
Name the "lies". Name the school. C'mon._GoneFishin_ said:That's embarresing that someone could find a movie of a guy that stand there and lies to you over and over again with false information good.HOOK said:that Docudrama was pretty good :thumbup: and very informative seen it more than once
I'm also surprised you watched it twice, I watched half of it and left the room.
Did you hear about the school in england that got sued for playing it, and saying it was true, yeah, it got proven for more than a dosen fals facts. I believe they were sued for over a million.
Carbon dioxide amounts up to less than half of one per cent of out atmosphere. I'm pretty sure that plants need carbon dioxide to survive, so why is it that we need to reduce so much of those emissions? I don't know how much carbon dioxide the whole world of plants needs to survive, but 0.038% doesn't seem like all that much.Earth's atmosphere is a layer of gases surrounding the planet Earth and retained by the Earth's gravity. It contains roughly (by molar content/volume) 78% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, trace amounts of other gases, and a variable amount (average around 1%) of water vapor.
Delete.professori said:Name the "lies". Name the school. C'mon._GoneFishin_ said:That's embarresing that someone could find a movie of a guy that stand there and lies to you over and over again with false information good.HOOK said:that Docudrama was pretty good :thumbup: and very informative seen it more than once
I'm also surprised you watched it twice, I watched half of it and left the room.
Did you hear about the school in england that got sued for playing it, and saying it was true, yeah, it got proven for more than a dosen fals facts. I believe they were sued for over a million.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21016312/professori said:Name the "lies". Name the school. C'mon._GoneFishin_ said:That's embarresing that someone could find a movie of a guy that stand there and lies to you over and over again with false information good.HOOK said:that Docudrama was pretty good :thumbup: and very informative seen it more than once
I'm also surprised you watched it twice, I watched half of it and left the room.
Did you hear about the school in england that got sued for playing it, and saying it was true, yeah, it got proven for more than a dosen fals facts. I believe they were sued for over a million.
Sorry Gofish, but the fact that some school official is of the opinion that An Inconvenient Truth is inaccurate and political, and has instituted a law suit tells me nothing. You cannot apparently give any answer other than "if you want to find the lies, half the movie is lies". If you can't identify any of the lies, perhaps I cqn point you toward some of the facts as I have stated them. The Royal Society (UK) has some useful web pages devoted to climate change:_GoneFishin_ said:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21016312/professori said:Name the "lies". Name the school. C'mon._GoneFishin_ said:That's embarresing that someone could find a movie of a guy that stand there and lies to you over and over again with false information good.HOOK said:that Docudrama was pretty good :thumbup: and very informative seen it more than once
I'm also surprised you watched it twice, I watched half of it and left the room.
Did you hear about the school in england that got sued for playing it, and saying it was true, yeah, it got proven for more than a dosen fals facts. I believe they were sued for over a million.
There... It wasn't just one school.. also, if you want to find the lies, half the movie is lies, so just watch it.
Go check this out. http://www.bcfishingreports.com/forum/index.php?topic=5507.0reelangler said:A little off topic. But I heard a couple days ago over the radio that because of fish farms we could see no more wild fish in 4 more years. It wasn't a very informative report but I can't see the reality within it, seeing as the only species significantly effected is the pink salmon because of their rapid migration to the ocean at a very young age (correct me if i'm wrong please).
I believe you are wrong. the increase for the past 30 years has been .2%, but the overall rise in global average over the past 300 years has not been steady, the past 30 years have seen a marked increase in temperature.Another thing a friend of mine showed me is an online website explaining how the world temperature has gone up an average of 0.2C in the past thirty years. Correct me if im wrong, but thats 2C in 300 years, which in my opinion does not seem that significant.
Although carbon dioxide is a small portion of the atmosphere it's ability to retain heat is very large, therefore a large percentage increase in co2 results in increased heat retention by the earth. Salt represents a very small percentage of a persons diet, but 300 or 400% increase in one's daily intake above the daily recommendation (3 or 4 teaspoons) can rfesult in catastrophic health conditions. [/quote]Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, here a quote from Wikipedia:
Carbon dioxide amounts up to less than half of one per cent of out atmosphere. I'm pretty sure that plants need carbon dioxide to survive, so why is it that we need to reduce so much of those emissions? I don't know how much carbon dioxide the whole world of plants needs to survive, but 0.038% doesn't seem like all that much.Earth's atmosphere is a layer of gases surrounding the planet Earth and retained by the Earth's gravity. It contains roughly (by molar content/volume) 78% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, trace amounts of other gases, and a variable amount (average around 1%) of water vapor.
Actually we have extensive records of climate change over hundreds of thousands of years. The science of climatology and paleoclimatology is very well established and those scientist do have proof to back it up. The effects of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, wagter vapour and methane to name 3 of the most well known) are accepted by all climatologists, the only real controversy is the cause of the greenhouse gas accumulation i.e. human or non-human factors.As so many people have said already, the world and human existance is very young. We do not have sure records of the climate in the past, so this may just be a global cycle. Honestly I have no proof to back this up, but to me it just makes sense. Sure humans add quite a bit of unhealthy emissions into the atmosphere, but I do not believe that it significantly effects global warming.
And what do think the reasons for reducing those gases are, if not for the health of the planet and its occupants?Sure, reduce the amount of harmful gases in the atmosphere, but do it for the health of the living organisms on the planet and the land we occupy.
So are you opposed or for global warming? Your thoughts that is. Every statement following this one seams to contradict it.professori said:Considering the consequences of global warming, any position in favour of it would have to be pretty simple minded. I, therefore am opposed to it.
Do you have any idea what the question you are asking is????? Global warming is a condition. I am against that condition. I am not in favour of the earth(globe) getting warmer (warming). Do I support the view that global warming is largely accelerated by human activity. Yes! Do I believe we need to try to curtail our impact on the rate of global warming. Yes! Am I in favour of the globe getting warmer (global warming). No!!! What doesn't seem clear to you....your question??? Do you need any more clarification?reelangler said:So are you opposed or for global warming? Your thoughts that is. Every statement following this one seams to contradict it.professori said:Considering the consequences of global warming, any position in favour of it would have to be pretty simple minded. I, therefore am opposed to it.
AN INCONVENIENT TRUTHSouth Texas Salt said:then your apparent endorsement of Gore's thing, movie, whatever, An Inconvient Truth. FYI, you would search hard to find someone in the lower 48 states who watched this and as you know he lost the last election.
No further clarification is needed. I just feel you should have been a little more specific in your first post of this thread as to what it is that you were not in favour of. But it's all good now.professori said:Do you have any idea what the question you are asking is????? Global warming is a condition. I am against that condition. I am not in favour of the earth(globe) getting warmer (warming). Do I support the view that global warming is largely accelerated by human activity. Yes! Do I believe we need to try to curtail our impact on the rate of global warming. Yes! Am I in favour of the globe getting warmer (global warming). No!!! What doesn't seem clear to you....your question??? Do you need any more clarification?reelangler said:So are you opposed or for global warming? Your thoughts that is. Every statement following this one seams to contradict it.professori said:Considering the consequences of global warming, any position in favour of it would have to be pretty simple minded. I, therefore am opposed to it.
Not according to my resource. http://www.livescience.com/environment/060925_temperatures_high.html :I believe you are wrong. the increase for the past 30 years has been .2%, but the overall rise in global average over the past 300 years has not been steady, the past 30 years have seen a marked increase in temperature.
In a study that analyzed temperatures around the globe, researchers found that Earth has been warming rapidly, nearly 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit (0.2 degrees Celsius) in the last 30 years.
My mistake, I meant .2°, not ,2%. The point being that .2° rise in temperature in the past 30 years does not mean 2°C rise in the past 300 years. The article you cite states that "researchers found that Earth has been warming rapidly...". this would seem to support what I have been saying.reelangler said:Not according to my resource. http://www.livescience.com/environment/060925_temperatures_high.html :I believe you are wrong. the increase for the past 30 years has been .2%, but the overall rise in global average over the past 300 years has not been steady, the past 30 years have seen a marked increase in temperature.
In a study that analyzed temperatures around the globe, researchers found that Earth has been warming rapidly, nearly 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit (0.2 degrees Celsius) in the last 30 years.